I didn't suggest you agree or disagree with tariffs. And, I personally would not make a broad brush positive or negative comment concerning tariffs. Each must be judged upon its merits or drawbacks.
In regard to what you posted about the money supply during that time period, contemporary newspapers articles of the time confirm your opinion. I am one who actually researched that time period while at the University of Maryland while engaged in a lengthy project.
JWK

You can't reason with some folks, especially when their mission is to disrupt any productive discussion concerning the use of taxes at our waters' edge to advance the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
JWK
The unavoidable truth is, our social democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

:rolleyes:
JWK
There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from crap hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

Now that's odd because when I met with Ron Paul in 1984, he agreed with Congress' use of power to encourage America's ship building industry under our nation's first revenue raising act. At least, that was the impression he gave me and my associate during our meeting.
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

Your adolescent extremely large type font does not change the fact that the S/H Act had a very small impact on the depression.
And, what does your assertion have to do with the fact that taxes at our water's edge are a very important tool which can be used to advance the common defense and general welfare of the United States? Is that question too complicated for you to address in an intelligent manner? Are you more interested in obfuscations, deflections and avoiding that subject and prefer to continue with you intended distractions?
JWK

Unsubstantiated opinions and assertions are worth rep points? The fact is, economists still, to this date, babble on and on as to what caused the great depression. Additionally, an irrefutable fact is, the Smoot-Hawley Act had a very small, statistically confirmed, impact on the depression.
Another irrefutable fact is, taxes used at our water's edge are a very important tool which can be used to advance the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
JWK

It apparently has not taught you anything, or, you are using it to post false assertions in order to disrupt an intelligent discussion regarding the use of taxes at our water's edge to advance the general welfare of the United States.
You asserted Smoot-Hawley " . . . turned the minor recession into the full blown Great Depression."
JWK

Your nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with deterring the impact which Smoot-Hawley had, and which you asserted " . . . turned the minor recession into the full blown Great Depression."
All you do is make crap up and then switch the subject when you are called upon to substantiate the crap you post.
Carry on. No one with common sense buys into your nonsense.

I addressed your absurd assertion that the Smoot-Hawley "Tariff Act turned the minor recession into the full blown Great Depression." I wrote:
I was absolutely correct when I wrote: "The Smoot-Hawley Act did not give us the depression of 1929. The Act became law in the middle of 1930, well after the depression was in progress. When one studies the statistics, Smoot-Hawley had a very small impact on the economy. The cause of the crash was wild speculation on Wall Street and an abundance of cheap paper money. "
Those who constantly point to Smoot-Hawley as evidence that taxing at our water's edge is destructive to the general welfare of the United States are either ignorant of the statistical facts, or perhaps are opposed to using tariffs in any situation, including those which may benefit the general welfare of the United States.
The irrefutable fact is, the use of taxes at our water's edge is a useful tool to advance America's best interests, an example of which I have already documented when such a tax was used to encourage America's ship building industry.

Stop changing the goal posts!
In regard to a dialog, I was absolutely correct when I wrote: "The Smoot-Hawley Act did not give us the depression of 1929. The Act became law in the middle of 1930, well after the depression was in progress. When one studies the statistics, Smoot-Hawley had a very small impact on the economy. The cause of the crash was wild speculation on Wall Street and an abundance of cheap paper money. "
Those who constantly point to Smoot-Hawley as evidence that taxing at our water's edge is destructive to the general welfare of the United States are either ignorant of the statistical facts, or perhaps are opposed to using tariffs in any situation, including those which may benefit the general welfare of the United States.
The irrefutable fact is, the use of taxes at our water's edge is a useful tool to advance America's best interests, an example of which I have already documented when such a tax was used to encourage America's ship building industry.

To answer your question, there are various reasons why a tariff could be justified. One reason would be that the product imported was produced in a situation in which the laborer(s) are not free to negotiate the value of their own labor. Keep in mind, "free trade" begins with a working person be able to negotiate the value of their own labor.
JWK
The unavoidable truth is, our social democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

The statistical documentation does not confirm your opinion.
The Smoot-Hawley Act did not give us the depression of 1929. The Act became law in the middle of 1930, well after the depression was in progress. When one studies the statistics, Smoot-Hawley had a very small impact on the economy. The cause of the crash was wild speculation on Wall Street and an abundance of cheap paper money. Stop making crap up.
Aside from that, the use of taxes at our water’s edge are a very useful tool to promote America’s general welfare.
In regard to promoting America’s common defense and general welfare under our nation’s first revenue raising Act, our founding fathers imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

Pat Buchanan is spot on!
Also, keep in mind "free trade" begins with people being free to negotiate the value of their own labor. China does not engage in free trade.
When a product is produced in China using what amounts to slave labor wages, and America adds a tariff to the product in the amount which the laborer in China ought to have been paid, it levels the playing field and the America consumer can choose to purchase a well manufactured article produced in America or the inferior similar product produced in China under slave labor conditions.
The fact is, there are countless international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any country and have aligned themselves with the leaderships of oppressive countries to gain assess to slave labor in order to increase their profits, and have a competitive edge based on slavery which they use to destroy competitors where a fair market wage is paid.

Federal taxation for functions not authorized by our written Constitution e.g., food stamps, public schools, foreign aid, public housing, etc., is theft. Federal taxation for functions authorized by our written constitution and which follow the constitutional rules which limited federal taxation, e.g., any direct tax must be apportioned, have been agree to, and you are free to call them what you will.
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes our Washington Establishment’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v.Topeka,(1875).

What exactly do you mean "confirmed" the Great Depression?
JWK
Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

:rolleyes:
JWK
Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

.
President Trump is spot on to promote tax policy, especially at our water’s edge, which advances America’s general welfare and common defense, just as our founding fathers did, and that would include a modern-day tax policy to insure America is not dependent upon foreign nations for steel or aluminum, both of which are vital in the production of America’s military needs.
The historical fact is, our founding fathers used taxes at our water’s edge to promote America’s best interests, and the use of these taxes were very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who have sold their souls to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America, and likewise have sold their souls to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce which now represents these international corporate giants and our global governance crowd.

One thing I noticed during Mr. Levin’s interview with Mr. Williams, LINK, Mark’s body language indicated he was furious when Mr. Williams expressed he was not too enthusiastic about calling a convention.
Mark’s body language, and use of the phrase “fear mongering”, also indicated great frustration when Mr. Williams correctly pointed out if such a convention were called, it would more than likely be controlled by the very type of people who have, and are now causing our sufferings, and that includes Republicans and Democrats who now hold political power.
I think Mr. Levin ought to carefully consider Madison’s expressed fears if a convention were called under Article V. He should also take note of the reasons why Phyllis Schlafly battled against the calling of a convention up till the day of her death.
JWK

On Mark Levin’s first show on Fox News Channel, 2/25/18, “Life, Liberty and Levin”, Mr. Levin suggests to Walter Williams that we should convene a convention under Article V to deal with our present government which is moving toward a totalitarian system as noted by Mr. Williams __ LINK
In defending his desire for calling a convention, Mr. Levin notes that James Madison was in favor of the Convention of 1787, but he curiously neglects to acknowledge that James Madison later expressed his apprehensions of calling a convention under Article V which he did in a letter to George Tuberville dated November 2, 1788, months after New York and Virginia had ratified our existing Constitution and wanted a convention called under Article V in order to adopt a Bill of Rights.
In any event, in response to Mr. Levin’s desire to call a Convention under Article V, Mr. Williams, as did James Madison, expressed a fear that the people who would likely attend the convention will not be people line “Benjamin Franklin or George Mason”, it would more than likely be people like “Nancy Pelosi”, which is another way of telling Mark Levin the same thing Madison told George Lee Tuberville regarding a convention being called under Article V:
”… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.” See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788

See Florida Republican donor says he’ll stop giving to GOP lawmakers who don’t back gun control
”A prominent GOP donor in Florida is threatening to cut off funding to Republicans who oppose a ban on assault weapons.
Al Hoffman, Jr. recently fired off an email to incumbent Gov. Rick Scott and former Gov. Jeb Bush, both Republicans, among a handful of others about the decision.
“I will not write another check unless they all support a ban on assault weapons,” wrote Hoffman, a real estate bigwig. “Enough is enough!”